ASME Div II Vessel Design issues in code

[JRJJ]

I have a client who originally designed vessels to Div II Add 2010 and place order with fabricator in 2011 before Add 2011 came into effect, however the client removed the order from this particular fabricator and has now re-placed it with me just now. Unfortunately some of the nozzles now fail the design conditions in Add 2011 however i am being told that if the client to us (not end user) issues another PO back dated to 2011 this will be ok and we can use the original nozzles with no need to re-order in accordance with Add 2011. To me this is wrong but i am being told by local ASME Inspector it is acceptable since we actually bid in 2010 during the initial tender.
Any advise would be welcome.

 

[SnTMan]

JRJJ, I don't do Div 2 work, however:

Code are always changing such that what was previously acceptable now is not. The experience generally is that previous edition(s) produced safe and workable equipment.

If the design meets 2010 rules and all parties are agreeable to that Addenda, I would not have too much problem with it.

Regards,

Mike

 

[weldtek]

Int VIII-1-95-29 / VII-2-95-04 uses the word 'contract'. The mandated edition and addenda of the code at the time of contract between the user and the manufacturer.
If you, your customer and the AI are in agreement with using the edition and addenda in effect at quote, you should be fine. My opinion only.

 

[JRJJ]

Thank you gents.

 

[TGS4]

I would tend to agree with both SnTMan and weldtek - the choice of Edition and Addenda is a contractual issue and not a matter for the Code, per se.

If you, your customer, and the AI are in agreement, then it should be settled.

I am curious, though, exactly what change in Div 2 in the 2011 Addenda caused the issue.


Just my standard rant here: the proper name for the Code is ASME Section VIII, Division 2, not Section 8, not Division II. Getting something as simple as the name of the Code wrong indicates a lack of attention to detail; and attention to detail is what engineers need to be about. Please get the name right.